It gives you the ability to record at a lower level with less (perhaps no) loss when you boost it back up to a normal level. I can record a live band with 24 bits at a fairly low level and not worry about unexpected loud noises being clipped and causing distortion. Afterwards I can scan the entire recording for the highest level and convert it to 16 bit audio without any hint that it had been recorded at a low level.

I'm sorry I don't know the proper technical terms for what I'm describing.

Reduced quantization errors. This was a problem on some early digital recordings (especially live classical) that caused the final released CD to have a grainy sound.

It gives you the ability to record at a lower level with less (perhaps no) loss when you boost it back up to a normal level. I can record a live band with 24 bits at a fairly low level and not worry about unexpected loud noises being clipped and causing distortion. Afterwards I can scan the entire recording for the highest level and convert it to 16 bit audio without any hint that it had been recorded at a low level.

I'm sorry I don't know the proper technical terms for what I'm describing.

Whatever it's called, it's neat to be able to record 24 bit sound to your laptop at very conservative levels and still get excellent dynamic range without constantly worrying about the peaks getting clipped. Bands can record their performances without anyone monitoring the recording.

Whatever it's called, it's neat to be able to record 24 bit sound to your laptop at very conservative levels and still get excellent dynamic range without constantly worrying about the peaks getting clipped. Bands can record their performances without anyone monitoring the recording.

16 bit and 24 bit recordings would clip at exactly the same level... in turning the level down to the point where it isn't clipping, you are moving the recording into the noise floor...

You are actually reducing the dynamic range of the recording by taking the easy way out (the correct way would be to spend the time and properly setup your gain stage.) You're moving your recording into your equipments noise floor.

Can you explain why turning the recorded level down wouldn't accomplish the same thing with 16 bit?

Often 192ks DAC's are advertized but that does not mean that the dsp processing, other than upsampling, before the dacs is 192ks.

Onkyo has some smallprint in the manual that internal processing is limited to 96ks. 192ks is downsampled.
The denons boast about 'alpha processing plus' before the signal from the dsp processing is going to the dacs. This alpha processing is basically a fancy upsampling/oversampling algorythm. If the signal is processed at 192ks this alpha processing is not needed.

Meridian is limited to 96ks.

For most of us true 192ks signal path al the way to the dacs means a significant double dip.

If processing is at 192ks through the entire digital amp I have no doubt that this will be pointed out in the brochure.So far I found hardly any indications about this other than a statement in an Onkyo user manual.

But as stated there is no audible benefit from a signal at 192ks instead of 96ks.

Any difference in sound is due to differences in the hardware used in such a test. For example a DAC running at 192ks can sound different if used with 96ks sample rate. If a dac is switched the oversampling filter adjusted from 8 times to 4 times. This alone make results from such a test very dubious.

24bit/96ks is more than good enough.

I have an Onkyo 705 and I'd like to clarify a few points I found in the manual. The manual mentions 192kHz in several different places and it offers some interesting info.

If you send a 192kHz (wether it be 16/20/24 bit) Linear PCM signal to the 705, it will handle it just fine without downsampling. The issue becomes problematic when bitstreaming.

If you bitstream a 192kHz DTS-HD MA track, the Onkyo 705 will downsample the signal to 96kHz. If you bitstream a 192kHz Dolby TrueHD track, you'll apparently hear nothing because the receiver does not support Dolby TrueHD at 192kHz. It makes no mention of downsampling as it does with DTS-HD MA.

So if you have a playback device capable of converting 192kHz DTS-HD MA/192kHz Dolby TrueHD to PCM without any downsampling, you'll be able to hear the 192kHz track on the Onkyo 705.

That said, I wonder what good it'll do since the receiver manual also mentions that its frequency response is from 5Hz to 100kHz. That would negate most of the benefits of a 192kHz track, right? Or is the extra headroom never used?

So it's just the newer Lionsgate releases? I was gonna go through my Lionsgate BD's but they all predate Transporter 3, which is why I ask.

YOu are correct about Australia. SOrry, I am going from memory, but yes Lionsgate releases and I don't know if it is just newer more recent releases. I thought the intro has been around a few months, but maybe not.

That said, I wonder what good it'll do since the receiver manual also mentions that its frequency response is from 5Hz to 100kHz. That would negate most of the benefits of a 192kHz track, right? Or is the extra headroom never used?

Ummm...no.

1) The Nyquist point with a 192 kHz sample rate is 96 kHz, so there can be no signal above 96 kHz.

2) In all likelihood, anti-aliasing was applied to the original signal at a level far below 96 kHz prior to or during mastering.

3) Frequency range has nothing to do with headroom.

4) You can't hear anything above 20 kHz, and it's unlikely that your speakers can reproduce much above that frequency.

16 bit and 24 bit recordings would clip at exactly the same level... in turning the level down to the point where it isn't clipping, you are moving the recording into the noise floor...

I haven't noticed any noise in the recordings after finding the highest level in them, stripping off the unused upper bits, and converting the audio to 16 bit PCM. The quietest passages have no trace of electronic noise.

Quote:

You are actually reducing the dynamic range of the recording by taking the easy way out (the correct way would be to spend the time and properly setup your gain stage.) You're moving your recording into your equipments noise floor.

If a recording device is able to capture a sound level that far exceeds maximum sound level it will be capturing while also capturing the quietest sound level with no noise, where is the loss?

Quote:

Can you explain why turning the recorded level down wouldn't accomplish the same thing with 16 bit?

I can't say because I have never done this. When I've recorded to 16 bit PCM, I was very cautious of the levels because I wanted CD quality sound. Would 8 bit or 4 bit sound do this?

If I review my recording and find the entire recording sounds excellent by only using the lower 18 of the 24 bits and my target is 16 bit audio, what have I lost by not using those high bits? Nothing that I can tell.

1 - 3)So then what's the benefit of having a 192kHz (or even a 96kHz) sampling rate?

The most basic benefit is in the digitizing process. Higher sampling rates allow you to avoid the use of anti-aliasing filters with a steep cutoff (which can result in unwanted phase shifts).

Quote:

4) Yeah, my RF-63's only go up to 21kHz and my RC-62 only goes up to 23kHz.

So....think this through. In the playback phase, there is no benefit to higher sampling rates, although if the media is distributed in the same format as the original master, you are less likely to have loss during the down-sampling into the distribution format.

Of course, one could ask why it would be more desirable to have the down-sampling done in a $750 AVR as opposed to very expensive dedicated mastering equipment.....?

The most basic benefit is in the digitizing process. Higher sampling rates allow you to avoid the use of anti-aliasing filters with a steep cutoff (which can result in unwanted phase shifts).

So....think this through. In the playback phase, there is no benefit to higher sampling rates, although if the media is distributed in the same format as the original master, you are less likely to have loss during the down-sampling into the distribution format.

Of course, one could ask why it would be more desirable to have the down-sampling done in a $750 AVR as opposed to very expensive dedicated mastering equipment.....?

So then, if I'm understanding you correctly, there is no necessary benefit but rather a potential one. However, if the downsampling is done correctly during the mastering phase, there is no need for a 192kHz track in the final reproduction phase. A correctly mastered 96kHz or 48kHz track should suffice. Am I correct?

So then, if I'm understanding you correctly, there is no necessary benefit but rather a potential one. However, if the downsampling is done correctly during the mastering phase, there is no need for a 192kHz track in the final reproduction phase. A correctly mastered 96kHz or 48kHz track should suffice. Am I correct?

I have an Onkyo 705 and I'd like to clarify a few points I found in the manual. The manual mentions 192kHz in several different places and it offers some interesting info.

If you send a 192kHz (wether it be 16/20/24 bit) Linear PCM signal to the 705, it will handle it just fine without downsampling. The issue becomes problematic when bitstreaming.

If you bitstream a 192kHz DTS-HD MA track, the Onkyo 705 will downsample the signal to 96kHz. If you bitstream a 192kHz Dolby TrueHD track, you'll apparently hear nothing because the receiver does not support Dolby TrueHD at 192kHz. It makes no mention of downsampling as it does with DTS-HD MA.

So if you have a playback device capable of converting 192kHz DTS-HD MA/192kHz Dolby TrueHD to PCM without any downsampling, you'll be able to hear the 192kHz track on the Onkyo 705.

That said, I wonder what good it'll do since the receiver manual also mentions that its frequency response is from 5Hz to 100kHz. That would negate most of the benefits of a 192kHz track, right? Or is the extra headroom never used?

My Yamaha RX-V663 will display that it is receiving 96 Khz 5.1 DTS-MA when the 192 KHz 5.1 DTS-MA track is bitstreamed to it from the Divertimenti Blu-ray. However, it displays that it is receiving a 192 KHz 5.1 channel track when you bitstream the PCM or DD-TrueHD track.

I couldn't find any reference about the DTS-MA downsampling in my Yamaha's manual.

I finally hear the 96kHz DTS-MA intro track on Punisher: War Zone. Sweet! But I'd be hard pressed to say that it sounded so awesome simply because it's at 96kHz. The actual movie has 48kHz DTS-MA which was just as badass as the DTS intro. So I'd say it was really a mix/audio quality issue that resulted in such awesomeness more than anything.

I finally hear the 96kHz DTS-MA intro track on Punisher: War Zone. Sweet! But I'd be hard pressed to say that it sounded so awesome simply because it's at 96kHz. The actual movie has 48kHz DTS-MA which was just as badass as the DTS intro. So I'd say it was really a mix/audio quality issue that resulted in such awesomeness more than anything.

Punisher has the DTS-MA promo/intro thingy before it? I know that Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull had the Dolby TrueHD one before it. Which other BD's have these intros?

Lionsgate has the DTS-HD/MA intro (about 10 seconds long) that sweeps the sound around and shows off your system nicely.

Lee

Just listened to the DTS-MA intro on the Punisher movie a few days ago again (I have heard it a few times before) and it sounds great, but honesly I find the lossy DD THX intro to be even more impressive on the Indy 4 disc and not only is it not 96kHz, but is a lossy codec as well. I dont think ANY conclusions can be made about the possible benefits of 96kHz from this DTS-MA intro. It would be like me making the conclusion that lossy DD is better than lossless DTS-MA at 96kHz since I find the Indy intro more pleasing which is obviously ridiculous.

S'okay, jrcorwin. I just though I might have missed it since I tend to spam the skip button when playing a disc in order to avoid all the disclaimers and FBI warnings (unless the function is disabled, of course).

The THX intro sounds fantastic, RBFC. I didn't mean to make it seem otherwise. I was just saying that it wasn't presented in Dolby True HD.

The DTS-HD MA on The Punisher: War Zone may have only been 10 seconds long but they were an incredibly awesome 10 seconds.

Lionsgate has the DTS-HD/MA intro (about 10 seconds long) that sweeps the sound around and shows off your system nicely.

Lee

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toe

Just listened to the DTS-MA intro on the Punisher movie a few days ago again (I have heard it a few times before) and it sounds great, but honesly I find the lossy DD THX intro to be even more impressive on the Indy 4 disc.

I have only heard the THX intro on Indy 4. I'll probably take a look at Punisher now as well for the DTS-MA intro.

Is there an easy way to find out which BD's have these intros? Lionsgate releases have them? I have several and never noticed it.